This case involves a dispute over New Hampshire's repeal of its motor vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance program. Gordon-Darby Holdings, Inc., the parent company of the sole vendor contracted to administer the program, sued the state Commissioners under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision. The state had passed legislation repealing the program effective January 31, 2026, and notified the vendor of its intent to terminate the contract on that date. Gordon-Darby argued that the state's communications about the repeal and the impending contract termination constituted violations of the State Implementation Plan. The district court issued a preliminary injunction in January 2026, ordering the state to resume and ensure the continued enforcement of the program. The Commissioners then sought a stay of that injunction pending appeal, arguing that the state was likely to succeed on the merits and that the injunction caused irreparable harm to state sovereignty.
The court applied the four-factor test for a stay pending appeal established in Nken v. Holder. First, regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, the court analyzed whether the Clean Air Act permits citizen suits against state officials for purely prospective violations. The district court had relied on Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation to find that the state was 'in violation' of the plan based on future conduct. However, the First Circuit clarified that Gwaltney, which interpreted the Clean Water Act, requires a 'reasonable likelihood that a past polluter will continue to pollute in the future' or a 'good-faith allegation of ongoing violation.' The court held that Gwaltney does not authorize suits where the alleged violation is purely prospective at the time of the complaint. Since Gordon-Darby could not point to any actual violation of the State Implementation Plan prior to the suit, the Commissioners made a strong showing that they would likely succeed in dismissing the case. Second, the court found irreparable injury to the state if the injunction stood, citing the principle that a state suffers irreparable harm when enjoined from effectuating statutes enacted by its legislature. Third, the court found that Gordon-Darby would not suffer substantial injury because its contract was terminated for convenience, meaning the injunction did not guarantee the contract's return. Finally, the public interest favored allowing the state's statutory repeal process to proceed while the underlying legal questions are resolved.
The preliminary injunction is suspended, permitting New Hampshire to cease enforcement of the repealed motor vehicle emissions inspection program immediately. The underlying appeal regarding the validity of the repeal and the scope of the Clean Air Act citizen suit provision will continue. The state is not required to reinstate the program or the vendor contract unless the appellate court eventually rules in favor of the plaintiff. The decision clarifies that citizen suits under the Clean Air Act likely require an allegation of ongoing or past violations, not merely anticipated future noncompliance.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download